© National Strength and Conditioning Association
Volume 28, Number 1, pages 50–66
Keywords: youth weightlifting; talent identification; strength;
power
Weightlifting: A Brief Overview
Michael H. Stone, PhD
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City,Tennessee
Kyle C. Pierce, EdD
USA Weightlifting Development Center, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana
William A. Sands, PhD
Coaching and Sports Science, United States Olympic Committee, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Meg E. Stone
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City,Tennessee
summary
This is the first part of a 2-part dis-
cussion on weightlifting and will de-
scribe the historical and scientific
background of the sport.
efore we can begin a meaningful
B discussion of weightlifting it is
pertinent to begin with appro-
priate definitions. For the purpose of
this discussion the appropriate term
for training with added resistance/load
is resistance training (RT). RT can be
used as a general term to describe
training with different modes. These
modes can include free weights and
machines. Weight training is a general
term and a type of RT used to describe
methods/modes in which a load
(weight) is actually lifted; this could
include free weights or a weight stack.
The general term RT also includes vari-
ous training methods having diverse
50
goals. These methods include training
for rehabilitation/injury prevention,
general fitness and recreational sports,
bodybuilding, and competitive sports.
From the aspect of competitive sports
this includes the following:
• Using RT as an integral part of train-
ing for sports other than powerlift-
ing or weightlifting.
• Using RT for powerlifting. Powerlift-
ing is actually a strength sport in
which 3 lifts are contested. The 3
lifts, in order of execution in a con-
test, are the squat, bench press, and
deadlift.
• Using RT for weightlifting. Weight-
lifting is a strength/power sport in
which 2 lifts are contested. The 2
lifts, in order of execution in a con-
test, are the snatch and the clean and
jerk. Weightlifting (one word)
should not be confused with weight
lifting (2 words) or weight training.
Weightlifting refers to a specific
sport, whereas weight lifting refers
simply to lifting a weight (44). In this
context weightlifting is often referred
to as Olympic lifting; however, this
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
terminology is misleading in that all
weightlifting does not occur in the
Olympics. Furthermore, none of the
governing bodies (international or
national) use the term “Olympic lift-
ing” in their name. Governing bodies
consistently use the term weightlift-
ing (e.g., USA Weightlifting, Aus-
tralian Weightlifting Federation, In-
ternational Weightlifting Federation
[IWF]).
Several performance-associated charac-
teristics impact the ability to perform as
a weightlifter. These characteristics in-
clude strength, rate of force develop-
ment, and power.
Strength can be defined as the ability to
produce force, and this force can be iso-
metric or dynamic (58, 61). Because
force is a vector quantity, the display of
strength would have primary character-
istics of magnitude and direction. The
magnitude can range from 0 to 100%.
The level of force production and its
characteristics are determined by a num-
ber of factors including the time period
of muscle activation, the type of con-
traction, the rate of muscle activation,
and the degree of muscle activation. The
importance of force production can be
ascertained from Newton’s second law,
F = ma. The acceleration (a) of a mass
(m) such as body mass or an external ob-
ject depends upon the ability to generate
F). Acceleration in turn results in
force (F
a velocity; as weightlifting is a velocity-
dependent sport, high force production
is an essential element. Another impor-
tant characteristic associated with
strength is the rate at which the force is
developed. Rate of force development
(RFD) is associated with acceleration
capabilities (53) and can also be an im-
portant factor among strength-power
athletes in determining superior perfor-
mance. For example, the critical aspects
of most strength-power sports occur in
very short time frames (<250 millisec-
onds); if a greater force (due to greater
RFD) can be produced in this critical
time period then greater accelerations
and velocities can be achieved. Interest-
ingly, stronger athletes also appear to
have RFD advantages (22).
Power production is the product of force
F × V ) and is likely the most
and velocity (F
important factor in determining success
in most sports, particularly weightlifting.
Thus, the ability to generate force
(strength) and its related component,
RFD, is an integral part of power produc-
tion, and therefore may be a key compo-
nent in determining athletic success.
Endurance can be defined as the ability
to maintain or repeat a given force or
power output. High-intensity exercise en-
durance (HIEE) is the ability to main-
tain or repeat very high forces or power
outputs. Although weightlifting is not
generally thought of as an endurance
sport, being able to repeat high forces or
high power outputs (HIEE) is a necessi-
ty both in training and competition.
The development of these characteristics
(strength, RFD, power, HIEE) is impor-
tant for success in weightlifting. It is also
important to note that RT can empha-
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
size one or more performance character-
istics, such as training for maximum
strength, power, or HIEE. The emphasis
can then be termed strength training
(training for maximum strength), speed-
strength training (training for power),
strength-endurance training (training to
repeatedly lift heavy loads), or power-en-
durance training (training to sustain or
repeat high power outputs). Training for
weightlifting is largely performed using
free weights, and typically there will be
an emphasis on different aspects (perfor-
mance characteristics) of training during
a training cycle (see Training the Athlete
section).
Historical Perspective
Weightlifting can trace its beginnings to
more than 4,000 years ago. Evidence for
both strength training and strength
contests can be found in the illustra-
tions of weight-lifting and strength
movements on the tomb of the Egypt-
ian Prince Baghti dating from approxi-
mately 2040 BC. Detailed writings
from Lu’s Annals (54) dating from 551
BC also indicate that feats of strength
and strength training were valued ath-
letic endeavors in ancient China. An-
cient records indicate that contests of
strength/power were apparently not in-
cluded in the ancient Greek Olympics.
However, ancient Greek writings, stat-
ues, and training/competition imple-
ments (e.g., halteres, or throwing
stones) indicate that resistance training
and contests of strength/power were
quite popular in ancient Greece at least
as early as 557 BC and that exhibitions
and strength contests were likely in-
cluded in other ancient games (54).
Such contests of strength/power gained
in popularity into the modern era.
The present day sport of weightlifting
requires not only great strength but also
exceptional power, speed of movement,
and flexibility. The beginnings of mod-
ern weightlifting can be traced to the
mid 1800s, when several clubs devoted
to weightlifting and general strength
training began to spring up in Europe,
particularly in Austria and Germany.
The first World Weightlifting Champi-
onships were held in London in March
1891. Weightlifting, as a sport, rapidly
spread to the United States; through the
1930s to the early 1960s the United
States was a world leader in weightlift-
ing, producing several world and
Olympic champions (15).
Men’s weightlifting was included in the
first modern Olympics in 1896 as a part
of track and field. Its own international
federation was formed in 1905 and was
recognized by the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) in 1914. Weightlift-
ing became a permanent fixture in the
Olympics at the 1920 Antwerp Games.
During the early 1980s, women’s
weightlifting increased in popularity,
particularly in the United States and
China, and the first women’s world
championships were held in Daytona
Beach, Florida, in 1987. Women were
first included as part of the Olympics
weightlifting program during the 2000
Games in Sydney, Australia. In most
countries weightlifting includes both ju-
nior (12–20 years) and open men’s and
women’s competitions; these competi-
tions are held at the local, regional, na-
tional, and international level.
From 1896 until 1925, weightlifting
competition included both 1- and 2-
arm lifts. In 1925 the IOC limited com-
petition to 3 lifts: the 2-hands press,
snatch, and clean and jerk (54). These 3
lifts were contested from 1925 until
1972 when the press was dropped from
competition, largely as a result of diffi-
culties in judging press technique.
Presently, weightlifting is contested in
approximately 165 countries and, by
number of countries, is consistently 1 of
the 7 largest participant sports in the
Olympics.
Each country has its own governing
body responsible for holding competi-
tions and certifying athletes and officials
according to international rules. Addi-
tionally, national governing bodies may
51
 Table 1a
Physical Characteristics of U.S. Male Weightlifters

Age Body mass Height

Number (year) (kg) % Fat LBM (cm) W/H
EL (n = 14) 24 ± 3 89.1 ± 18.0 10.1 ± 4.0 80.1 ± 13.0 171.0 ± 9.5 0.52 ± 0.12

M + 1 (n = 7) 26 ± 4 84.9 ± 20.9 11.7 ± 5.0 74.1 ± 14.9 173.5 ± 11.0 0.48 ± 0.13

C2< (n = 13) 24 ± 4 86.2 ± 18.2 12.4 ± 6.9 75.4 ± 15.2 172.5 ± 13.0 0.50 ± 0.14

UT (n = 7) 20 ± 3 90.1 ± 5.4 18.2 ± 7.4 74.0 ± 9.6 179.0 ± 3.5 0.05 ± 0.13

Note: W/H = body mass (kg)/height (cm); EL = elite; M + 1 = master and first class; C2< = class 2 and below; UT = untrained men (group match sta-
tistically on body mass); LBM = lean body mass. Body composition was measured by skin folds. UT, C2, M, first, and elite data collected 1978–1983.
Elite data collected fall 2003 and presented at USOC in-house seminar 2004.

Table 1b
Physical Characteristics of Elite Female Weightlifters

Age Body mass Height

Number (year) (kg) % Fat LBM (cm) W/H
WL (n = 14) 27 ± 5 61.3 ± 11.5 20.4 ± 3.9 49.0 ± 12.2 161.6 ± 8.6 0.38 ± 0.06

UT (n = 13) 26 ± 7 61.1 ± 9.9 27.0 ± 7.4 44.6 ± 16.8 164.2 ± 8.6 0.37 ± 0.09

Note: W/H = body mass (kg)/height (cm); WL = elite weightlifters; UT = untrained women (group matched statistically on body mass); LBM = lean
body mass. Body composition was measured by skinfolds.WL and UT data collected 1987; elite data collected fall 2003 and presented at USOC
in-house seminar 2004.

be engaged in the education of coaches,
which includes clinics and seminars.
The IWF was founded in 1905 and is
headquartered in Budapest, Hungary.
Information concerning the history, re-
sults of international competitions, and
educational aspects of weightlifting are
provided via the IWF web site at www.
iwf.net.
The Athlete: Physical
Characteristics
Elite male weightlifters’ somatotype
and physical characteristics are some-
what similar to those of wrestlers and
throwers in track and field (73). Pre-
liminary measurements of female
weightlifters made by the authors also
indicate that there are somatotype sim-
ilarities between female weightlifters
and female wrestlers and throwers. Al-
though there are exceptions, superior
weightlifters tend to have shorter limbs
and a relatively long trunk compared
with sedentary individuals (75). At the
same body mass, elite weightlifters typ-
ically posses a relatively high lean body
mass and low percent fat compared
with untrained subjects or athletes in
other sports (66).
Percent fat among elite male weight-
lifters may range from 5 to 6% in the
lighter body weight classes to >20% in
the unlimited body weight class. For fe-
male weightlifters these values (% fat)
are typically 5–10 percentage points
higher than male weightlifters. Addi-
tionally, weightlifters generally have a
relatively high body mass and lean body
mass : height ratio (66, 73); thus at the
same body mass weightlifters tend to be
shorter than other athletes. Based on an
achievement classification of weight-
lifters, Table 1a shows some of the physi-
cal characteristics of male weightlifters
of different abilities. Note that percent
fat tends to decrease with the increasing
level of athlete (66). The physical char-
acteristics of female weightlifters are
shown in Table 1b. The data for
weightlifters (Tables 1a and 1b) were
collected between 1978 and 1988. Table
1c shows the physical characteristics of 9
male and 7 female elite U.S. weight-
lifters training for the 2003 World
Weightlifting Championships. Com-
parison of Tables 1a and 1b with 1c indi-
cate that the physical characteristics of
elite weightlifters have been generally
consistent over time. However, the ratio
of body mass : height appears to have
increased, particularly among the
women.
The relatively high body mass : height
ratio compared with untrained subjects
(and other athletic groups) is advanta-
geous because it may confer some lever-
age. For example, a shorter stature
would decrease the relative height to
which the bar must be moved in order
to complete a lift. Additionally, there
may be a force-generating advantage
that results from having a high body
mass : height ratio. For example, if 2
athletes of different heights and differ-
ent limb lengths have the same muscle

52 February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal

 Table 1c
Physical Characteristics of Elite U.S.A. Male and Female Weightlifters (2003)

Age Body mass Height

(year) (kg) % Fat LBM (cm) W/H
Elite Males (n=9) 23 ± 4 95.2 ± 19.0 13.2 ± 5.8 80.4 ± 11.8 171.4 ± 4.8 0.56 ± 0.11

Elite Females (n=7) 23 ± 4 68.9 ± 7.5 19.6 ± 4.4 54.9 ± 3.7 161.1 ± 5.8 0.44 ± 0.04

Note: W/H = body mass (kg)/height (cm); LBM = lean body mass. Body composition was measured by skinfolds. Data were collected fall 2003 and
presented at USOC in-house seminar 2004.

mass and volume, the shorter athlete

will have the greatest muscle cross-sec-
tion and therefore a greater muscle
force–generating capability. The rela-
tively low body fat associated with a
high lean body mass, typically observed
in elite weightlifters, can be associated
with the extensive training programs
used (42, 43). Thus, elite weightlifters
can be described as generally mesomor-
phic, shorter than other athletes at the
same body mass, and having a relatively
low body fat content.

Performance Requirements

Basic Technique for Pulling

Movements
The performance capabilities of a com-
petitive weightlifter primarily depend
upon leg and hip strength and power
(18). In the snatch, the bar is raised from
the floor to an overhead position in 1
motion; the lifter splits or squats under
the bar and then stands erect (Figure 1).
The second lift contested is the clean
and jerk. The bar (weight) is first
cleaned (Figure 2a) by lifting it from the
floor to the shoulders (in front of the
neck); the lifter either splits or squats
under the bar and then stands erect.
After cleaning the bar it is jerked over-
head. The jerk results from driving the
bar overhead using the legs and catching
it on straight arms; at the completion of
the drive, the lifter either splits or squats
under the bar and again stands erect
(Figure 2b).

The most efficient technique for the

pulling movement is termed the “dou- Figure 1. The snatch.

February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal 53


Figure 2a. The squat clean.
ble-knee bend” (DKB; 1). The pulling
sequences shown in Figures 1 and 2a de-
pict this technique.. In these sequences
(Figure 1 and 2a) of the snatch and
clean we can clearly observe the DKB
occurring. Several key positions can be
noted in this series of photos. Position 1
54
corresponds to liftoff at which point the
shoulders are over and in front of the
bar and the back is flat or in a normal
“lordotic” position (arched) and re-
mains in this position throughout the
pull. The feet are flat on the floor and
the center of foot pressure is forward
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
near the ball of the foot. At position 2
the bar has moved to the knees, the
shoulders are still above and in front of
the bar, the feet are still flat on the floor,
and the center of pressure has now
moved toward the heel. The bar and
lifter have moved up and back primarily
as a result of extension at the knee. Posi-
tion 3 corresponds to the DKB position
at which the bar has moved to the
midthigh, the feet are still flat, the knee
angle will be approximately 130–140°,
and the trunk is nearly vertical. The
center of foot pressure has now moved
toward the middle of the foot. Position
3 is the strongest of the entire pulling
sequence and is crucial for high-level
success. In position 4 we can observe
complete extension; the weightlifter has
moved onto the balls of his (or her) feet
and the shoulders are shrugged—after
which the lifter moves under the bar for
the catch (Position 5).
A stretch-shortening cycle occurs when a
concentric muscle action immediately
follows a lengthening (eccentric) muscle
action. Most elite lifters use a rather pro-
nounced DKB or stretch shortening dur-
ing the transition (moving from position
2 to position 3), with a final knee angle
of about 130–140º, the final knee angle
in the snatch typically being somewhat
smaller (greater knee bend) then in the
clean (4, 48). Some elite weightlifters use
a much shallower DKB with greater knee
angles. It is not completely known why
this difference in knee angle occurs;
however, it may be due to differences in
elastic properties or muscle-activation
abilities.
During the transition (positions 2 and
3) into the DKB there is an unweighting
phase as the knees are rebent and the
trunk is brought into a near vertical po-
sition. During the second pull (posi-
tions 3 and 4) there is a sharp increase in
vertical force until the weightlifter drops
under the bar for the catch. Even at max-
imum weights the entire lift (floor to
catch) should be completed in less than
1 second.
Elite weightlifters will typically com-
plete the transition phase more rapidly
than unskilled lifters. RFD may play an
important role during the transition
phase. A faster transition (DKB) among
skilled lifters likely results from the abil-
ity to apply eccentric force at faster rates
and greater magnitudes (33). Further-
more, the elite skilled lifter can acceler-
ate the bar faster during the subsequent
concentric phase (after the DKB). In an-
alyzing (both qualitatively and quantita-
tively) over 1,000 lifts from national
(United States and Britain) and interna-
tional contests, it is quite clear that the
majority of high-caliber and elite lifters
(>99%) placing in the top 5 of these
contests use a DKB pulling technique.

Bar position relative to the body is par-

ticularly important during the DKB. As
the bar rises, the bar should actually
touch the thigh during the DKB. This is
because leaving the bar in front of the
thigh (not touching) creates a position
from which less force can be exerted, as
this position creates an extended-mo-
ment arm. Furthermore, the further the
bar is in front of the lifter’s center of
mass, the greater the energy that must be
expended in order to bring the bar back
toward the lifter so that it can be success-
fully caught on the shoulders or over-
head. Although brushing the thigh (not a
drag or bang) may increase the friction
encountered during the pull, this is more
than offset by the ability to accelerate the
bar from the DKB position. Transmis-
sion of peak force to the bar occurs just
after the initial thigh contact, and peak
velocity occurs shortly after peak force.
Peak power typically occurs between
peak force and peak velocity.
Figure 2b. The split jerk.
Importance of the DKB Phase
The vertical ground reaction forces weighting period in conjunction with hances concentric action is not com-
commonly observed during a pulling eccentric and concentric muscle actions. pletely clear, but may involve increased
movement can be noted in Figure 3. As This DKB phase is important because elastic energy use, a myotatic (stretch)
previously discussed, most weightlifters (a) it reduces the tension on the back reflex, optimizing muscle length, im-
of reasonable standard use a stretch- (13), and (b) the sudden forceful stretch parting additional energy into the con-
shortening cycle in which the knees are in some manner enhances the concen- tractile apparatus, optimizing muscle
rebent and moved under the bar (the tric portion of the pull. The mecha- activation patterns, or some combina-
DKB phase). This consists of an un- nism(s) by which a stretch reflex en- tion of mechanisms (5, 13, 45).

February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal 55


Figure 3. Vertical ground reaction forces. CON = concentric phase; UW = unweighting
phase; ECC = eccentric phase; DDKB = deep double knee bend; SDKB = shal-
low double knee bend.
Good technique is essential for a num-
ber of reasons including transmitting
forces efficiently and in the appropriate
direction so that ultimately a greater
weight can be lifted, the potential for
carryover to other sports performances
will be enhanced, and the potential for
injury can be reduced.
Performance Capabilities
As previously defined, strength is the
ability to produce force (58, 67). Force
in turn is related to the ability to acceler-
ate an object. Power can be defined as the
product of force and velocity or as a work
rate (58, 67, 69). Higher peak work rates
are quite advantageous in strength-
power sports, generally separating the
winner and losers (41, 67). It is obvious
that weightlifters possess great strength
and power (10). It is not unusual for elite
weightlifters to lift overhead 2–3 times
their body mass. For example, 4 male
weightlifters (Hailil Mutlu, Naim
Suliemonyglu, Stephan Topurov, and
Angel Genshev) have lifted 3 times their
body mass in the clean and jerk, and over
20 female weightlifters have lifted 2
56
times their body mass in the clean and
jerk; women are now approaching 2.5
times their body mass.
Strength. The loads lifted in the snatch
and clean and jerk are partially related to
body mass. Differences in maximum
strength between larger and smaller ath-
letes primarily result from the relation-
ship between muscle force capabilities
and muscle cross-sectional area. The rela-
tionship between cross-sectional area and
maximum strength is a linear function
(11, 31, 77), so as cross-sectional area in-
creases so does maximum strength. Larger
athletes having a greater absolute cross-
sectional area of muscle can produce more
force and lift more weight then smaller
athletes (provided similar training has
taken place). This difference is largely re-
sponsible for body weight classes in
weightlifting and many other sports.
Body weight classes have been changed
several times over the years; these
changes result from differences in the
number of athletes entering various
weight classes from year to year and dif-
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
ferences in the average weight lifted in
each class at continental and world
championships (74). The body weight
categories were revised for the sixth time
in January 1998. The current body
weight (body mass) classes for men are,
56, 62, 69, 77, 94, 105, and >105 kg; for
women, 48, 53, 59, 63, 75, and >75 kg.
Although maximum strength and mus-
cle cross-sectional area share a near-lin-
ear relationship, strength per kilogram
of body mass and body size are not lin-
ear. Indeed, relative strength tends to
markedly decrease with size largely as a
result of the relationship of cross-sec-
tional area, muscle volume, and body
dimensions. The cross-sectional area is
related to the square of linear body di-
mensions, and muscle mass is directly
proportional to muscle volume. In turn
the muscle volume is related to the cube
of linear body dimensions (26). There-
fore, increases in maximum strength lag
behind increasing body mass. Assuming
that body proportions remain relatively
constant, smaller athletes typically dis-
play greater levels of maximum strength
on a per kilogram of body mass basis
(strength : mass ratio) compared with
larger athletes (Tables 2a and 2b).
Appropriately comparing weightlifters
of different weights may provide an
index as to which athlete is actually the
better performer. This type of informa-
tion is not only of interest from a scien-
tific aspect, but could provide meaning-
ful information in determining the best
lifter during weightlifting contests.
However, simply dividing the absolute
weight lifted by the lifters’ body mass bi-
ases the results in favor of the smaller
athlete because it does not take into ac-
count the expected decrease in the
strength : body mass ratio with increas-
ing body size. Lietzke (39) indicated
that weightlifting world records were
approximately proportional to two-
thirds of the body mass of the
weightlifters (the two-thirds power law).
However, this method has been shown
to have deficiencies; for example, at-
 Table 2a
Body Mass and Performance: Men 2000 Olympics

Class Body mass Snatch Clean and jerk Total (kg) T/kg Sinclair Siff

56 55.62 137.5 167.5 305 5.48 473.43 108.51

62 61.56 150 175 312.5 5.08 447.43 98.95

69 68.78 162.5 195 357.5 5.20 472.20 102.78

77 76.20 160 207.5 367.5 4.82 454.98 98.59

85 84.06 175 215 390 4.64 457.46 99.20

94 92.06 185 220 405 4.40 455.06 98.96

105 104.7 190 235 425 4.06 454.54 99.19

105+ 147.48 212.5 260 472.5 3.2 473.28 101.85

Note: Modified from Stone and Kirksey, 2000 (65). T/Kg = total (Kg)/body mass.

Table 2b
Body Mass and Performance: Women 2000 Olympics

Class Body mass Snatch Clean and jerk Total (kg) T/kg Sinclair Siff

48 47.48 82.5 102.5 185 3.90 256.59 105.57

53 52.46 100 125 225 4.29 290.64 116.11

58 56.92 95 127.5 222.5 3.91 272.95 107.59

63 62.82 112.5 130 242.5 3.86 281.65 110.22

69 66.74 110 132.5 242.5 3.63 273.51 106.91

75 73.28 110 135 245 3.34 265.75 104.02

75+ 103.56 135 165 300 2.90 300.96 118.71

Note: Sinclair number listed as 1.0000 after 150.0 kg. Modified from Stone and Kirksey, 2000 (65). T/Kg = total (Kg)/body mass.

tempts to obviate differences in size
based on the two-thirds law apparently
will bias results toward small and partic-
ularly middle-sized athletes (28, 29).
This deficiency likely occurs because the
exact relationship between anthropo-
metrics, body mass, muscle mass, and
maximum strength has not been com-
pletely determined (28, 29, 34). Further-
more, weightlifting is not a pure strength
sport but may be better described as a
strength-speed sport in which the ability
to produce a very high external power
appears to be the major factor determin-
ing success (17, 32, 34). Clearly peak
power output (or maximum strength)
and weightlifting performance among
athletes with widely varying body masses
is not a linear function (34).
Realizing the deficiencies in the two-
thirds power law, a number of different
models for comparison of athletes of dif-
ferent body masses have been developed
for both powerlifting and weightlifting
(28, 29, 34). These formulae (although
superior to the two-thirds power law) still
do not completely describe the relation-
ship between weightlifting performance
and body size (28, 29, 34). Two compari-
son models commonly used in weightlift-
ing are the Sinclair formula (59) and the
Siff II formula (58). These formulae, par-
ticularly the Sinclair formula, are often
used in weightlifting contests to identify
the best lifter. Tables 2a and 2b show the
results of the winners of each class for the
men and women at the 2000 Olympic
Games. In general there is a steady de-
crease in the total divided by body mass;
however, this pattern is not readily appar-
ent using the comparison formulae, espe-
cially when considering the performances
of the unlimited class for both the men
and women.

February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal 57


Table 2c
Relationships (Correlations) Between Maximum Strength (Isometric Midthigh
Pull) and Weighlifting Performance (n = 9 Men, 7 women)
SN C&J CMJPP SJPP
Unscaled 0.83 0.84 0.88 0.84
Allometric 0.5 0.5 0.64 0.67
Sinclair 0.79 0.8 0.86 0.86
Note: SN = Snatch; C&J = clean and jerk; CMJPP = countermovement vertical jump peak
power; SJPP = static vertical jump peak power. Data collected fall 2003 and presented at USOC
in-house seminar 2004.
By attempting to obviate differences in strongly correlated with weightlifting
body mass, the importance of maximum performance and that this relationship is
strength for weightlifting and weight- apparently independent of body mass.
lifters can be partially ascertained. For Furthermore maximum strength (IPF),
example, correlations (Table 2c) be- even when body mass is apparently obvi-
tween peak isometric force (IPF) from a ated, is also strongly correlated with
midthigh position and the snatch and measures of explosiveness such as peak
clean and jerk were calculated for 14 power during countermovement and
male and female national- and interna- static vertical jumps (Table 2c).
tional-level weightlifters (51). Relation-
ships were compared using nonscaled, Power. Commonly performed tests of
allometrically scaled (body mass 0.67), power and “explosive strength,” such as
and Sinclair formula values to control a vertical jump, consistently show
for size differences. Assuming that scal- weightlifters to be among the most pow-
ing can obviate body mass differences, erful of athletes (2, 10, 60, 61). Two re-
comparisons can then be made indepen- cent studies comparing the power out-
dently of body mass. Table 2c indicates put of athletes in different sports
that maximum isometric strength is support this concept. McBride et al.
Figure 4. Comparative power outputs (41).WL=weightlifters; PL = powerlifters;
SPRINT = sprinters; C = control.
58 February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
(41) studied elite Australian weight-
lifters, powerlifters, sprinters, and un-
trained subjects. Power output, normal-
ized for body mass by analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA), was assessed
through weighted jumping. Jumps were
performed at 0, 20, and 40 kg and at 30,
60, and 90% of their 1 repetition maxi-
mum (1RM) squat from a 90° knee
angle. The results showed that the
weightlifters produced the highest
power output at any load (Figure 4).
Controlling for maximum strength dif-
ferences and using weighted jumping,
Stone et al. (69) again found weight-
lifters to produce higher power outputs
at any percentage of the maximum 1RM
parallel squat compared with power-
lifter/heavy weight trainers, wrestlers, or
an untrained group (Figure 5). These
data (41, 69) indicate that weightlifting
training can be advantageous for whole-
body power production. There is no rea-
son to believe that these results (i.e., the
effects of weightlifting training) would
not be advantageous for a variety of
sports.. The superior power output of
weightlifters is likely partially genetic,
but also stems from the type of training
programs employed by weightlifters (18,
19, 27, 61).
The training programs used by
weightlifters (63) and conceptually simi-
lar training programs (27) have been
shown to markedly increase strength and
power. It should be noted that in terms
of a whole-body movement, the snatch
and clean and jerk afford the highest
power outputs recorded in sport (18,
19). Examples of the average power out-
puts from various competition lifts are
shown in Table 3. Note that the power
output, particularly in the second pull,
for weightlifting movements is far in ex-
cess of that produced by the powerlifts
(squat, bench press, deadlift). This obser-
vation suggests that (a) powerlifting is a
misnomer, and (b) if the objective of
training is to improve whole-body power
output, then using high-power–generat-
ing exercises such as weightlifting pulling
movements are reasonable.
Maximum power for nonballistic move-
ments appears to occur at about 30–50%
of maximum isometric force. For most
nonballistic exercises the maximum iso-
metric force is very nearly the same as a
1RM value. Thus, a value of 30–50% of
the 1RM is a very close approximation of
the optimum percentage. However, the
snatch and clean and jerk are ballistic
movements, and their successful comple-
tion is velocity-dependent. Therefore,
the optimum percentage-producing
peak power is approximately 70–85% of
the 1RM for pulling movements. This
indicates that peak power for the snatch
and clean at 70–85% of the 1RM would
be approximately 10–20% higher than
the power outputs observed at maximum
Figure 5. Comparative power outputs (66).WL = weightlifter; BB/HT = heavy weight
(17). Weightlifters spend a considerable
trainer; WREST = wrestler; C= control.
amount of training time using loads of
70–85% of 1RM, particularly in pulling
movements; this type of training may
optimize gains in power production. Table 3
Power Outputs of Different Exercises During Competition
Logical arguments and evidence from ob- Absolute Power (W)
jective studies indicate that training at
high-power outputs will result in superior Exercise 100 kg male 75 kg female
increases in power compared with typical
Bench press 300
resistance training methods. Evidence in-
dicates that high levels of maximum Squat 1,100
strength in association with high-power
training, or a combination of heavy resis- Deadlift 1,100
tance training and power training (as oc- Snatch* 3,000 1750
curs among elite weightlifters), can result
in superior power performances (19, 23, 2nd pull† 5,600 2,900
27, 61, 63, 69, 76).
Clean* 2,950 1,750

Metabolic Considerations 2nd pull† 5,500 2,650

Coaches and athletes have often under-
estimated the energy cost of resistance
training, particularly weightlifting. Ad-
ditionally it is believed that resistance
training has no effect in altering body
fat. Some of these misconceptions may
arise from the commonly held belief
that the caloric cost of typical aerobic
exercise is substantially higher and that
only aerobic exercise can burn fat. How-
ever, these beliefs may not be correct.
For elite weightlifters, during the com-
petition phase it is not uncommon to lift
30,000–70,000 kg/wk. During the prep-
Jerk 5,400 2,600
* Total pull = lift off until maximum vertical velocity.
† 2nd pull = transition until maximum vertical velocity.
Note: Modified from Garhammer (18,19).
aration phase of weightlifting volume Furthermore, as a result of heavy weight
loads of >90,000 kg/wk can be associat- training, the magnitude of energy ex-
ed with energy expenditures as high as penditure during recovery appears to be
600–1000 Kcals/h and >3000 Kcals/wk dependent upon the volume of training
(37, 52). When peaking/tapering, the (43), and complete recovery may take as
energy cost is somewhat lower. Much of much as 24–38 hours (56). Therefore,
the energy expenditure resulting from during a high-volume training session,
weight training and weightlifting takes with large muscle mass exercises, it is
place during recovery (7, 8, 43, 56). probable that most of the energy cost oc-

February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal 59

 The training principles are (a) overload
Table 4 of volume and intensity factors, (b) vari-
Caloric Expenditure and Consumption of Sports Activities (Elite Athletes)
ation, and (c) specificity.
Expenditure Consumption
Activity (Kcal × kg-1 × D-1) (Kcal × D-1) The overload principle relates to stressing
the biological system beyond the norm.
Men
In order to provide a continued stimulus
Untrained ≤40 2,000–3,000 over a period of years, the training vol-
ume and training intensity increases. Vol-
Cross country 50–80 2,500–6,000 ume of training is typically estimated as
Marathon 50–80 2,500–6,000
the volume load (repetitions × mass lift-
ed), and training intensity is estimated by
Basketball 55–70 5,000–6,000 the average weight of the bar per week,
month, etc. The volume load can be re-
Sprinting (track) 50–65 3,300–6,000
lated to the total work accomplished, and
Judo 55–65 3,000–6,000 the training intensity can be related to
the rate at which training proceeds.
Throwing (field) 60–65 6,000–8,000 Training intensity should be differentiat-
Weightlifting 55–75 3,000–10,000 ed from exercise intensity, which is the
power output of a movement. Relative
Women intensity is the percentage of the 1RM for
a given exercise (lift). Weights equal to
Untrained ≤33 1,000–1,800
approximately 30–50% of the maximum
Cross-country 45–60 1,500–3,000 isometric capabilities usually produce the
highest exercise intensity (i.e., power out-
Gymnastics 40–60 1,200–2,500 puts). This would be equal to about
Sprinters (track) 40–55 2,000–3,000 70–85% of the 1RM snatch and clean
and jerk (17); a relative intensity at which
Throwers (field) 35–50 2,000–3,200 most training takes place (79).
Weightlifters 35–50 2,000–3,200
Variation relates to the changes in the
Note: Expenditure and consumption represent the possible ranges across a variety of train- composition of the training program.
ing phases (i.e., preparation, competition, peaking). Modified from Stone (62), and food records These changes can include alterations in
from elite athletes at the USOC Colorado Springs, CO (Judy Nelson and Karen Daigle, USOC nu-
tritionist, July 2004). volume, training intensity, and exercise
intensity, as well as exercise selection.
Variation is extremely important in
curs during recovery. The relatively high quate nutrition is considered. Adequate order to avoid the maladaptations asso-
energy cost of weightlifting training energy intake (and necessary nutrients) ciated with various forms of overtrain-
coupled with an increased mobilization is necessary to maintain body mass and ing (46, 65, 70, 71). Variation of train-
and use of fats during recovery (30, 42, support the extra energy requirements ing volume and intensity can be used to
64) partially explain the relatively low associated with training. Considering achieve desired goals; for example, high-
percentage of body fat found among the relatively large total energy expendi- er-volume, lower-intensity exercise may
elite weightlifters. ture, which can occur during weightlift- be used to enhance high-intensity exer-
ing training, caloric intake (food) can be cise endurance and beneficially alter
Coaches and athletes often underesti- quite high, especially among the larger body composition, whereas high-inten-
mate the magnitude and duration of re- weight classes (Table 4). sity, low-volume training may empha-
covery from weight-training sessions. It size increases in maximum strength. Ex-
is important to note that recovery from Training the Athlete ercise variation would include the use of
heavy loads, which can be prolonged, Training programs for competition are different exercises as well as variations of
could have effects on subsequent train- directly aimed at improvements in the the same exercise.
ing sessions and may contribute to over- snatch and clean and jerk. These train-
reaching and overtrained states. In this ing programs are generally based on Specificity relates to stressing the appro-
respect it is quite important that ade- well-known training principles (68). priate bioenergetic system and using ap-

60 February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal

propriate mechanics. The specificity
principle implies that the greatest train-
ing effects will occur if the training lifts
are similar to the snatch and clean and
jerk. This mechanical similarity includes
peak force, rates of force development,
velocity, and movement patterns.
Periodization can be defined as a logical
phasic manipulation of training vari-
ables, which can result in a decrease in
overtraining potential and an increased
probability of retaining training and
performance goals. The concept of peri-
odization appears to be the most effec-
tive method of applying the principles
of training to most sports including
weightlifting (46). A periodized pro-
gram is divided into specific phases,
each of which relates alterations in vol-
ume, intensity factors, and exercise se-
lection.
Although most coaches use some varia-
tion of the periodization concept, there
is no universal agreement on the details
(46). For example, during the prepara-
tion phase in which training volume is
typically increased, some coaches in-
crease the number of repetitions per set
and others increase the number of sets.
Other training differences may include
the number and timing of complete
competition lifts (i.e., squat snatch and
squat clean and jerk) or the number of
lifts performed at various relative inten-
sities during a mesocycle, particularly
those at 90% or above. In recent years,
because of the success of many Eastern
European teams, many Western
weightlifting coaches have attempted to
adopt similar training programs. These
Eastern European training programs are
typically centered on the snatch, clean
and jerk, and squats, with few additional
exercises; the loading is often quite
heavy, with maximum loads (1RMs)
being attempted several times weekly. It
is the opinion of the authors that adopt-
ing these programs has been no more
successful—and in many cases less suc-
cessful—than programs traditionally
used in the West. Indeed, our observa-
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
tion over the last 20 years has been that
coaches/athletes adopting Eastern Euro-
pean methods quickly modify these pro-
grams. There are several possible reasons
why the authors believe that these types
of programs have not been particularly
successful in the West:
• Differences in athlete selection. In
the past, prospective weightlifters
have been identified in talent identi-
fication programs at relatively young
ages in many Eastern European
countries such as Bulgaria (12).
• Differences in recovery/restorative
practices. This includes the use of
drugs.
• Overtraining. Basically, overtraining
can be described as an imbalance be-
tween training (and other stressors)
and recovery. Training too often at
high intensities increases the over-
training potential. Fry et al. (16)
have demonstrated that frequent
training at high intensities can pro-
duce decreases in squat performance
and symptoms of overtraining in as
little as 2–3 weeks. Assuming these
results can be generalized to
weightlifting training, many West-
ern athletes attempting to use East-
ern European weightlifting training
methods may simply be in various
states of overtraining.
Special Considerations
Women
Peak Power. Peak power is the highest in-
stantaneous power produced during a
movement and is a key to weightlifting
success (34). Peak power output for
women is about 65% of men during the
snatch and clean and jerk, and about
65–75% of men for various jumping
tasks (19). Both untrained and trained
women appear to generate lower power
outputs per volume of muscle and gen-
erate lower peak rates of force develop-
ment compared with men (35, 50).
However, the power output—particu-
larly in unloaded exercises such as jump-
ing—for women trained in power and
strength-power events such as throwing
and weightlifting appear to be some-
what closer to that of their male coun-
terparts than untrained women com-
pared with untrained males (72).
Upper Body Versus Lower Body. Because
of the relatively lower strength values for
upper-body movements, it is possible
that by placing more emphasis on
upper-body training for women that
training for weightlifting and other
sports can be enhanced. This may im-
prove performance in tasks that depend
in part or whole upon upper-body
strength. Part of the reasoning for more
emphasis on upper-body strength train-
ing is the assumption that the weaker
upper-body musculature may limit
strength gains in the lower body (21).
Therefore as a result of the relatively
weak upper-body musculature gains in
lifts such as squats, cleans, or snatches
could be compromised. Thus, prepara-
tion phases for women weightlifters may
need extra emphasis on upper-body
musculature—particularly those fo-
cused on muscles involved with over-
head support (72).
Menstrual Cycle Effects. Alterations in
hormone concentrations can affect
physiological and psychological parame-
ters, which in turn can affect force pro-
duction parameters (36, 42). It is known
that anabolic hormones such as growth
hormone and testosterone can have pro-
found effects on strength and strength-
related characteristics such as RFD and
power in both men and women. Indeed,
strength gains in women have been cor-
related to resting serum concentrations
of both total and free testosterone (24,
49). In women the concentrations of
various hormones, including testos-
terone, are influenced by the menstrual
cycle. The menstrual cycle is character-
ized by relatively large variations in sev-
eral hormones on a regular (or nearly
regular) basis. Because these hormones
(e.g., estradiol, progesterone, testos-
terone) can have effects on metabolic
and neuromuscular function, there is a
61
 potential for training/performance al-
terations to be affected during different
phases of the cycle.
Apparently, many women do not believe
they function normally during menstru-
ation, particularly during physical activ-
ity (20). However, most studies using
very active or athletic women do not
show substantial effects of menstruation
or the menstrual cycle on various para-
meters of performance. Therefore, these
more active women may have overcome
the negative aspects associated with the
menstrual cycle and menstruation (20,
55). However, some data indicate that
endurance performance may be com-
promised during the luteal phase among
some but not all aerobically trained
women (38). Furthermore, there is rea-
son to believe that maximum strength
and related characteristics may be al-
tered during various phases of the men-
strual cycle. For example, Masterson
(40) found that measures of power per-
formance on a cycle ergometer (Wingate
test) were reduced during the follicular
phase and enhanced during the luteal
phase in fairly active young women. Ad-
ditionally, some evidence indicates that
strength gains can be negatively affected
during the very early follicular phase
and positively affected during the late
follicular and very early luteal phase
(49). The greatest strength gains were
noted (49) during the late follicular and
early luteal phase and were moderately
correlated with resting serum estradiol
and testosterone concentrations. Addi-
tionally, Reis et al. (49) suggest that al-
tering the number of training sessions
(reduced during the luteal phase) during
various phases of the cycle may enhance
the training effect. These 2 studies (40,
49) indicate that reductions in training
load may be helpful because trained
women may not perform strength- or
power-related activities as well during
the luteal phase (particularly the late
luteal phase).
As a result of individual variation, one
practical approach for women weight-
62
lifters would be to consider keeping de-
tailed records of their ability to per-
form during different phases of their
cycle. Over a time period of several
months it may be determined how
training should be altered to match the
menstrual cycle phase on an individual
basis. Obviously much more research
in this area is needed.
Children and Adolescents
Training programs, with some differ-
ences based on maturity factors, follow
the same basic principles and concepts
regardless of age. The differences for
children depend on a couple of factors:
• Psycho-physiological factors: The chro-
nological age related to age of ex-
pected peak performance, general
level of intelligence, physical and
mental maturity, and genetic poten-
tial.
• Environmental factors: Current in-
volvement in sports and prior partic-
ipation in activities that develop co-
ordination, agility, and flexibility.
For example, activities such as gym-
nastics can be excellent prerequisites
to participation in weightlifting.
The starting age for weightlifting train-
ing in Bulgaria decreased an average of 2
years from 1983 to 1993. The recom-
mended age to begin training in this
small country—which has been highly
successful in weightlifting—is 10 years
(12). The training plan for these young
athletes has been well integrated with
their physical development, and each
phase of training is built on the previous
phase. Compared with most young
Western weightlifters, more time was
spent on general physical development
during the earlier years, and specialized
training was added gradually in succes-
sive years.
The emphasis for children starting at
this age needs to be on general physical
development that is compatible with
sports-specific fitness early on for at
least 2–3 years. For example, weightlift-
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
ing developmental fitness for children
would include considerable training
dealing with general body strengthening
(e.g., gymnastics, tumbling); endurance
factors; and enhancing cardiorespiratory
ability, mobility, and flexibility. Howev-
er, this training should not include a
great emphasis on long-term endurance
such as distance running. One method
emphasizing long-term athlete develop-
ment and long-term training plans for
weightlifting has been described by Ájan
and Baroga (1).
According to Balyi (3), developmental
factors are absolutely essential consid-
erations when training children/ado-
lescents. He proposes that 8–12 years
of training is necessary for a talented
athlete to reach elite levels. This is ob-
vious in football and basketball, with 3
years participation in middle school, 4
years in high school, and generally 4–5
years in college before playing profes-
sional sports. We often try to hurry
this process in weightlifting (and many
other sports).
It must be remembered that many and
likely most of the athletes participating
in Eastern European weightlifting pro-
grams were selected, based primarily on
genetic potential, through a comprehen-
sive talent identification search. Fur-
thermore, they had previous general
physical training and had the means
for—and used—methods of enhancing
recuperation. As previously pointed out,
all aspects of the training programs used
by these athletes may not be suitable for
Western athletes, particularly children.
However, all too often the Western
coach applies only a part of the Eastern
European program, missing the overall
concept of long-term progressive train-
ing. Usually, the part that is applied by
Western coaches involves early and ex-
clusive high-intensity specialized train-
ing, applying it with children/adoles-
cents who often have less physical ability
then their Eastern European counter-
parts, who often have used little or no
prior progressive building blocks of
training, and/or who put little or no ef-
fort toward promoting recovery. Fur-
thermore, many children/adolescents
from Western countries may be actively
participating in several other sports such
as American football, soccer, rugby, or
baseball, thus compounding the recov-
ery issue. Therefore, we would argue
that in the United States the “big pic-
ture” of the program is generally ignored
or not completely understood (see Part
2: Program Design in a future issue).
Injury Potential. Ballistic movements,
particularly those associated with
weightlifting, have been criticized as
producing excessive injuries (6); howev-
er, there is little objective evidence sub-
stantiating this claim. Reviews and stud-
ies of injury type and injury rates
associated with weight training and
weightlifting indicate that:
• Rates of injury are not excessive and
the incidence of injury is less than
those associated with sports such as
American football, basketball, gym-
nastics, soccer, or rugby (25, 64, 78).
• There is no evidence that the severity
of injury or incidence of traumatic
injury is excessive (25, 64).
Inappropriate training programs may
increase the potential for injury. As with
adults, resistance-training programs for
children that follow appropriate train-
ing guidelines have a low risk of injury
(14). Indeed supervised weightlifting
programs have been shown to have an
even lower rate of injury than other
forms of resistive training (25). This low
injury rate is related to well-supervised
programs constructed and implemented
by a knowledgeable coach (14).
Considerable controversy and lack of un-
derstanding surrounds children and
weight-training, especially weightlifting.
Little information is available that indi-
cates that weightlifting, under proper su-
pervision, is any more injurious to chil-
dren or adolescents compared with other
sports; indeed, the weightlifting injury
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
rate appears to be lower than in most
sports (25). Pierce et al. (47) reported
that no days of training were lost as a re-
sult of injuries incurred in weightlifting
over a period of 1 year’s competition and
training by 70 female and male children
ranging in age from 7 to 16 years. The
young lifters were allowed to perform
maximal and near-maximal lifts in com-
petition as long as correct technique was
maintained. Both the boys and girls in-
creased strength as measured by
weightlifting performance. A more de-
tailed study (9) of 3 girls (13.7 ± 1.2
years) and 8 boys (12.5 ± 1.6 years) across
a year’s competition (534 competition
lifts) produced similar results. Both boys
and girls showed marked weightlifting
performance improvement and no in-
juries requiring medical attention or loss
of training time (9). The conclusion of
these observations was that weightlifting
is safer than is generally believed, espe-
cially if training and competition are ap-
propriate for the age group and are well
supervised. The authors of these papers
(9, 47) emphasized that these results
must be viewed in light of the scientific
approach to training and competition
with these children. Only under these
conditions do the authors suggest that re-
sistive training or weightlifting is appro-
priate for children—a factor that should
be true for all sports.
As with any sport, weightlifting compe-
tition and weightlifting training should
be carried out with reasonable safety
measures in place. In normal supervised
environments, the potential for injury is
remarkably low.
Conclusion
Weightlifting is a strength-power sport,
and the athletes and their training may
be characterized by the following:
• The physical attributes (somatotype)
of weightlifters are similar to those
of wrestlers and throwers.
• The height : weight ratio of weight-
lifters is typically lower than for
most athletes.
• Although performance is partially re-
lated to body mass, stronger weight-
lifters (independent of body mass)
lift more in the snatch and clean and
jerk.
• The weight lifted in competition is
partially related to body mass and
strongly related to peak power.
• Smaller lifters have a higher maxi-
mum strength : body mass ratio
compared with large weightlifters.
• Weightlifters are among the stron-
gest and most powerful of all sports
groups.
• The metabolic cost of weightlifting
training can be quite high and is
often underestimated.
• Weightlifting training typically fol-
lows some type of periodized program.
• Injuries during training and compe-
tition are not excessive compared
with most sports. ♦
References
1. AJÁN, T., AND L. BAROGA. Weightlift-
ing: Fitness for All Sports. Budapest: In-
ternational Weightlifting Federation,
1988.
2. BAKER, D. Improving vertical jump
performance through general, special
and specific strength training: A brief
review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:131–
136. 1996.
3. BALYI, I., AND A. HAMILTON. Long-
term athlete development: trainability
in childhood and adolescence. Olympic
Coach. 16(1):4-8. 2004.
4. BARTONIETZ, K.E. Biomechanics of
the snatch: Toward a higher training
efficiency. Strength Cond. 18:24–31.
1996.
5. BOBBERT, M.F., K.G.M. GERRITSEN,
M.C.A. LITJENS, AND A.J. VAN SOEST.
Why is countermovement jump
height greater than squat jump height?
Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 28:1402–1412.
1996.
6. BRZYCKI, M. Speed of movement an
explosive issue. Nautilus. Spring:8–11.
1994.
7. B URLESON , M.A., H.S. O’B RYANT,
M.H. STONE, M.A. COLLINS, AND T.
TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE. Effect of weight
63
 training exercise and treadmill exer-
cise on post-exercise oxygen con-
sumption. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc.
30:518-522. 1998.
8. BYRD, R., K. PIERCE, R. GENTRY, AND
M. SWISHER. Prediction of caloric cost
of the parallel back squat in women. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 10:184–185. 1996.
9. BYRD, R., K. PIERCE, L. REILLY, AND L.
BRADY. Young weightlifters’ perfor-
mance across time. Sports Biomech.
2:133–140. 2003.
10. CARLOCK, J., S.L. SMITH, M. HART-
MAN, R. MORRIS, D. CIROSLAN, K.C.
PIERCE, R.U. NEWTON, E. HARMAN,
W.A. SANDS, AND M.H. STONE. Rela-
tionship between vertical jump power
estimates and weightlifting ability: A
field-test approach. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 18:534–539. 2004.
11. C LOSE , R.I. Dynamic properties of
mammalian skeletal muscle. Physiol.
Rev. 52:129–197. 1972.
12. D IMITROV, D. Age to begin with
weightlifting training. In: Proceedings of
the International Weightlifting Sympo-
sium. A. Lukacsfalvi and F. Takacs, eds.
Budapest: International Weightlifting
Federation, 1993. pp. 25–30.
13. E NOKA , R.M. The pull in Olympic
weightlifting. Med. Sci. Sport. 11:
131–137. 1979.
14. FAIGENBAUM , A., W. K RAEMER , B.
CAHILL, J. CHANDLER, J. DZIADOS, L.
ELFRINK, E. FORMAN, M. GAUDIOSE,
L. M ICHELI , M. N ITKA , AND S.
ROBERTS. Youth resistance training:
Position statement paper and literature
review. Strength Cond. 18:62–75.
1996.
15. FAIR, J.D. Muscletown USA. University
Park, PA: Penn State University Press,
1999.
16. FRY, A.C., J.M. WEBBER, L.W. WEISS,
M. FRY, AND Y. LI. Impaired perfor-
mance with excessive high-intensity
free-weight training. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 14:54–61. 2000.
17. G ARHAMMER , J. A review of power
output studies of Olympic and power-
lifting: Methodology, performance pre-
diction, and evaluation tests. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 7:76–89. 1993.
64
18. GARHAMMER, J.J. Power production
by Olympic weightlifters. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 12:54–60. 1980.
19. G ARHAMMER , J.J. A comparison of
maximal power outputs between elite
male and female weightlifters in com-
petition. Int. J. Sport Biomech. 7:3–11.
1991.
20. GOLUB, S. Periods: From Menarche to
Menopause. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
1992.
21. G OTS C H A L K , L., W.J. K R A E M E R ,
B.C. N INDL , S. TOESHI , J. VOLEK ,
J.A. B USH , W.J. S EBAST TIANELLI ,
AND M. PUTUKIAN. Contribution of
upper body training on total body
strength and power in young
women. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
30:S162. 1998.
22. H AFF, G.G., M.H. S TONE , H.S.
O’BRYANT, E. HARMAN, C. DINAN, R.
J OHNSON , AND K.-H. H AN . Force-
time dependent characteristics of dy-
namic and isometric muscle actions. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 11:269–272. 1997.
23. HÄKKINEN, K. Neuromuscular adapta-
tion during strength training, aging,
detraining, and immobilization. Crit.
Rev. Phys. Rehab. Med. 6:161–198.
1994.
24. H ÄKKINEN , K., A. PARKARINEN , H.
KYROLAINEN, S. CHENG, D.H. KIM,
AND P.V. KOMI. Neuromuscular adap-
tations and serum hormones in fe-
males during prolonged training. Int.
J. Sports Med. 11:91–98. 1990.
25. H AMILL , B.P. Relative safety of
weightlifting and weight training. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:53–57. 1994.
26. HARMAN, E. Biomechanical factors in
human strength. Strength Cond.
16:46–53. 1994.
27. H ARRIS , G.R., M.H. S TONE , H.S.
O’BRYANT, C.M. PROULX, AND R.L.
JOHNSON. Short term performance ef-
fects of high speed, high force or com-
bined weight training. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 14:14–20. 2000.
28. HESTER, D., G. HUNTER, K. SHULEVA,
AND T. KEKES-SABO. Review and eval-
uation of relative strength-handicap-
ping models. Natl. Strength Cond.
Assoc. J. 12(1):54–57. 1990.
February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal
29. HUNTER, G., D. HESTER, S. SNYDER,
AND G. C LAYTON . Rationale and
methods for evaluating relative
strength-handicapping models. Natl.
Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 12(1):47–57.
1990.
30. HUNTER, G.R., C.J. WETZSTEIN, D.A.
FIELDS, A. BROWN, AND M.M. BAM-
MAN. Resistance training increases total
energy expenditure and free-living
physical activity in older adults. J.
Appl. Physiol. 89:977–984. 2000.
31. IKAI, M., AND T. FUKUNAGA. Calcula-
tion of muscle strength per unit cross-
sectional area of human muscle by
means of ultra-sonic measurements.
Int. Zeit. angew. Physiol. Einschl. Ar-
beitphsiol. 26:26–32. 1968.
32. KAUHANEN, H., J. GARHAMMER, AND
K. HÄKKINEN. Relationship between
power output, body size, and snatch
performance in elite weightlifters. In:
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Con-
gress of the European College of Sport
Sciences. Jyvaskala: Finland, 2000. p.
383.
33. KAUHANEN, H., K. HÄKKINEN, AND
P.V. KOMI. A biomechanical analysis of
the snatch and clean and jerk tech-
niques of Finnish elite and district level
weightlifters. Scand. J. Sport Sci.
6:47–56. 1984.
34. KAUHANEN, H., P.V. KOMI, AND K.
HÄKKINEN. Standardization and vali-
dation of the body weight adjustment
regression equations in Olympic
weightlifting. J. Strength Cond. Res.
16:58–74. 2002.
35. KOMI, P.V., AND J. KARLSSON. Skeletal
muscle fibre types, enzyme activities
and physical performance in young
males and females. Acta Physiol. Scand.
103:210–218. 1978.
36. KRAEMER, W.J. Endocrine responses
and adaptations to strength training.
In: Strength and Power in Sport. P.V.
Komi, ed. London: Blackwell Scientif-
ic, 1992. pp. 291–304.
37. LARITCHEVA, K.A., N.I. VALOVARYA,
N.I. SHYBIN, AND S.A. SMIRNOV. Study
of energy expenditure and protein needs
of top weightlifters. In: Nutrition, Phys-
ical Fitness, and Health: International Se-
 ries on Sport Sciences (Vol. 1). J. Parizko-
va and V. Rogozkin, eds. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1978. pp. 53–68.
38. LEBRUN, C.M., D.C. MCKENZIE, J.C.
PRIOR, AND J.E. TAUNTON. Effects of
menstrual cycle on athletic perfor-
mance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:437-
444. 1995.
39. L IETZKE , M.H. Relation between
weight-lifting totals and body weight.
Science. 124:486–487. 1956.
40. MASTERSON, G. The impact of men-
strual phases on anaerobic power per-
formance in collegiate women. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13:325–329. 1999.
41. M C B RIDE , J.M., N.T. T RIPLETT-
MCBRIDE, A. DAVIE, AND R.U. NEW-
TON . A comparison of strength and
power characteristics between power
lifters, Olympic lifters and sprinters. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13:58–66. 1999.
42. MCMILLAN, J.L., M.H. STONE, J. SAR-
TAIN, D. MARPLE, R. KEITH, AND C.
BROWN. 20-hour physiological respons-
es to a single weight training session. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 7:9–21. 1993.
43. MELBY, C., C. SCHOLL, G. EDWARDS,
AND R. BULLOUGH. Effect of acute re-
sistance exercise on post-exercise ener-
gy expenditure and resting metabolic
rate. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:1847–1853.
1993.
44. NEWTON, H. Weightlifting?, weight
lifting?, Olympic lifting?, Olympic
weightlifting? Strength Cond. J.
21(3):15–20. 1999.
45. N EWTON , R.U., A.J. M URPHY, B.J.
HUMPHRIES, G.J. WILSON, W.J. KRAE-
MER, AND K. HÄKKINEN. Influence of
load and stretch shortening cycle on
the kinematics, kinetics, and muscle
activation that occurs during explosive
upper-body movements. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. 75:333–342. 1997.
46. P LISK , S., AND M.H. S TONE . Peri-
odization strategies. Strength Cond.
17:19–37. 2003.
47. PIERCE, K., R. BYRD, AND M. STONE.
Youth weightlifting: Is it safe?
Weightlifting USA. 17(4):5. 1999.
48. REISER, R.F., S.L. SMITH, AND R. RAT-
TAN . Science and technology to en-
hance weightlifting performance: The
Olympic program. Strength Cond.
18:43–51. 1996.
49. RIES, E., D. FRICK, AND D. SCHMID-
BLEICHER . Frequency variation of
strength training sessions triggered
by the phases of the menstrual cycle.
Int. J. Sports Med. 16:545–550.
1995.
50. RYUSHI, T., K. HÄKKINEN, H. KAUHA-
NEN , AND P.V. KOMI . Muscle fiber
characteristics, muscle cross-sectional
area, and force production in strength
athletes and physically active males and
females. Scand. J. Sport Sci. 10:7–15.
1988.
51. S ANDS , W.A., M.H. S TONE , K.
DAIGLE, P. CORMIE, S. MCWHORTER,
AND J.R. M C N EAL . Relationship of
maximum isometric strength to verti-
cal jump variables and weightlifting
performance in elite American men
and women weightlifters. Presentation
at the NSCA National Convention,
Minneapolis, July. Conference Abstracts,
2004. p. 580.
52. SCALA, D., J. MCMILLAN, D. BLESS-
ING, R. ROZENEK, AND M.H. STONE.
Metabolic cost of a preparatory phase
of training in weightlifting: A practical
observation. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res.
1(3):48–52. 1987
53. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for
power events. In: Strength and Power in
Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. London: Black-
well Scientific, 1992. pp. 381–395.
54. SCHODL, G. The Lost Past. Budapest:
International Weightlifting Federation,
1992.
55. S CHOENE , R.B., H.T. ROBERTSON ,
D.J. PIERSON , AND A.P. PETERSON .
Respiratory drives and exercise in men-
strual cycles of athletic and non-athlet-
ic women. J. Appl. Physiol. 50:1300–
1305. 1981.
56. SCHUENKE, M.D., R.P. MIKAT, AND
J.M. MCBRIDE. Effect of an acute pe-
riod of resistance exercise on excess
post-exercise oxygen consumption:
Implications for body mass manage-
ment. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 86:411–
417. 2002.
57. SIFF, M. Biomechanical foundations of
strength and power training. In: Bio-
mechanics in Sport. V. Zatsiorsky, ed.
London: Blackwell Scientific, 2000.
pp. 103–139.
58. SIFF, M.C. Biomathmatical relation-
ship between strength and body mass.
S. Afr. J. Res. Sport, Phys. Educ. Rec.
11:81–92. 1988.
59. SINCLAIR, R.G. Normalizing the per-
formances of athletes in Olympic
weightlifting. Can. J. Appl. Sports Sci.
10:94–98. 1985.
60. STONE, M.H. Physical and physiolog-
ical preparation for weightlifting. In:
USWF Safety Manual. J. Chandler and
M. Stone, eds. Colorado Springs, CO:
USA Weightlifting. 1991. pp. 70–101.
61. STONE, M.H. NSCA position stance
literature review “explosive exercise.”
Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 15:7–15.
1993.
62. STONE, M.H. Weight gain and loss. In:
Essentials of Strength and Conditioning.
T. Baechle, ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 1994. pp. 231–237.
63. STONE, M.H., R. BYRD, J. TEW, AND
M. W OOD . Relationship between
anaerobic power and Olympic
weightlifting performance. J. Sports
Med. Phys. Fit. 20:99–102. 1980.
64. STONE, M.H., A.C. FRY, M. RITCHIE,
L. STOESSEL ROSS, AND J.L. MARSIT.
Injury potential and safety aspects of
weightlifting movements. Strength
Cond. 16:15–24. 1994.
65. STONE, M.H., R. KEITH, J.T. KEAR-
NEY, G.D. WILSON, AND S.J. FLECK.
Overtraining: A review of the signs and
symptoms of overtraining. J. Appl.
Sports. Sci. Res. 5:35–50. 1991.
66. S TONE , M.H., AND K.B. K IRKSEY.
Weightlifting. In: Exercise and Sport
Science. W.E. Garret and D. T. Kirk-
endall, eds. Media, PA: Lippincott,
Williams, and Wilkins, 2000. pp.
955–964.
67. STONE, M.H., G. MOIR, M. GLAIS-
TER , AND R. S ANDERS . How much
strength is necessary? Phys. Ther. Sport.
3:88–96. 2002.
68. STONE, M.H., AND H.S. O’BRYANT.
Weight Training: A Scientific Approach.
Minneapolis: Burgess International,
1987.

February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal 65

 69. S TONE , M.H., H.S. O’B RYANT, L. 78. ZARICZNYJ, B., L. SHATTUCK, T. MAST, Kyle Pierce is a professor in the Kinesiology
M C C OY, R. C OGLIANESE , M. R. ROBERTSON , AND G. D’E LIA . and Health Science Department and is the
LEHMKUHL, AND B. SCHILLING. Power Sports-related injuries in school-aged Director and Coach of the USA Weightlift-
and maximum strength relationships children. Am. J. Sports Med. 8:318– ing Development Center at LSU Shreveport.
during performance of dynamic and 324. 1980.
static weighted jumps. J. Strength 79. ZATSIORSKY, V.M. Science and Practice William A. Sands is the head of Sports
Cond. Res. 17:140–147. 2003. of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Biomechanics and Engineering for the
70. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, K.C. Human Kinetics, 1995. United States Olympic Committee.
PIERCE, G.G. HAFF, A.J. KOCK, B.K.
SCHILLING, AND R.L. JOHNSON. Peri- Michael H. Stone is currently the Exercise Margaret E. Stone is currently a track and
odization: Effects of manipulating vol- and Sports Science Laboratory Director at field coach at East Tennessee State Uni-
ume and intensity—Part 1. Strength East Tennessee State University. versity.
Cond. J. 21(2):56–62. 1999.
71. STONE, M.H., H.S. O’BRYANT, K.C.
PIERCE, G.G. HAFF, A.J. KOCK, B.K.
SCHILLING, AND R.L. JOHNSON. Peri-
odization: Effects of manipulating vol-
ume and intensity—Part 2. Strength
Cond. J. 21(3):54–60. 1999.
72. S TONE , M.H., N.T. T RIPLETT-
M C B RIDE , AND M.E. S TONE .
Strength training for women: Intensi-
ty, volume, and exercise factors: Im-
pact on performance and health. In:
Women in Sports and Exercise. W.E.
Garret and D.T. Kirkendall, eds.
Rosemont, IL: American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2001. pp.
309–328.
73. TITTLE, K., AND H. WUTSCHERK. An-
thropometric factors. In: Strength and
Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. London:
Blackwell Scientific, 1992. pp. 180–
196.
74. VIRVIDAKIS, K. The new categories.
World Weightlifting. 1:37. 1997.
75. WARD, T., J.L. GROPPEL, AND M.H.
STONE. Anthropometry and perfor-
mance in master and first class
Olympic weightlifters. J. Sports Med.
Phys. Fitness. 19:205–212. 1979.
76. W ILSON , G.J., R.U. N EWTON , A.J.
MURPHY, AND B.J. HUMPHRIES. The
optimal training load for the develop-
ment of dynamic athletic perfor-
mance. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 25:
1279–1286. 1993.
77. YOUNG, A., M. STOKES, J.M. ROUND,
AND R.H.T. EDWARDS. The effect of
high-resistance training on the
strength and cross-sectional area of the
human quadriceps. Eur. J. Clin. Invest.
13:411–417. 1983.

66 February 2006 • Strength and Conditioning Journal